Author
Topic: Baser human desires (Read 1829 times)

Guess we have no reasoned argument here. Mostly just a misunderstanding.

What I mean by saying baser/higher thoughts is the latter part of your two distinctions.

Although, animals are instinctual and "beneath" humans. We are just better at whatever we want to be. Granted we're still pretty stupid. Mostly because we don't have realistic expectations and have a distorted view of ourselves thanks to bias.

I think this question delves into very deep waters. The problem is that despite all the talk you hear about how beautiful and wonderfully natural sex is I doubt there's anyone who strictly believes this with complete honesty. For starters it suggests a disagreement with many if not all of the restrictions that mankind has placed on sex throughout history. While this seems like a leap in logic, consider that the bulk of these restrictions were in the first place developed because in various ancient cultures some or the other aspect of sex was considered 'yucky' and not to be practiced.

Still let me bring this closer to home. If one is sincerely of the opinion that sex is completely natural, nothing to be ashamed of and to quote Traveler "a loving, sharing, joyous thing... such a lovely activity," then how does one defend the age restriction on sexual content in movies? I mean, if its such a lovely activity then why not let your children watch it? Why do we lie or obscure the details when were asked where babies come from, or what daddy was doing on top of mommy?[2]

Even in nudist colonies where members have done away with the absurd shame man has over his own genitals, sex [to my knowledge] is still hidden behind closed doors. And we are not doing this because of god or religion, rather we seem to cover up our sexual nature in the same way a dog buries its bones. At first yes with dogmatic instructions and yet today with equally restrictive tenets concerning etiquette and acceptable workplace behavior. Where does it end?

The problem is that despite all the talk you hear about how beautiful and wonderfully natural sex is I doubt there's anyone who strictly believes this with complete honesty.

Ahh, the old "you yourself don't believe what you're saying" accusation. It's impossible to disprove this sort of thing, and it does nothing to further any sort of discussion. Then again, that's the point, right?

While this seems like a leap in logic, consider that the bulk of these restrictions were in the first place developed because in various ancient cultures some or the other aspect of sex was considered 'yucky' and not to be practiced.

So says you; do you conclude this from actual historical information, or from your own Abrahamic biases? Anyway, "sex is yucky" is a lot easier and more effective to teach to youngsters than "sex is serious" if one wishes to discourage the activity.

Still let me bring this closer to home. If one is sincerely of the opinion that sex is completely natural, nothing to be ashamed of and to quote Traveler "a loving, sharing, joyous thing... such a lovely activity," then how does one defend the age restriction on sexual content in movies? I mean, if its such a lovely activity then why not let your children watch it?

Kids emulate what they see. Regardless of sex's beauty or lack thereof, that's not necessarily a good idea for kids to be doing. Their emotions aren't mature enough to handle the feelings that can come with sex. And because they're kids, explaining all this to them rationally isn't likely to be effective. So we use other methods of making it taboo. Unfortunately, these immature measures can survive into adulthood, as you demonstrate.

Even in nudist colonies where members have done away with the absurd shame man has over his own genitals, sex [to my knowledge] is still hidden behind closed doors.

You've...never actually had sex, have you? It can be a very personal thing, made more special in that it's shared with someone else you care about. Doing it in public doesn't lend itself to that feeling so well. Also, humans can be jealous creatures, and public sex might be seen as flaunting what one has. There are all sorts of reasons for this that have nothing to do with our residual, childish "yuck" reaction.

Forgetting for a moment the fact that there are people who do enjoy sex in groups, and that many ancient societies shared living quarters so that children were exposed to sex, I'm talking about sex between loving partners. Its about intimacy, not shame, to want to do it in private. Its a bonding between the two. As Azdgari said, if done in public its no longer an intimate setting. It becomes something else. A performance? I don't know what I'd call that. But most of us are not that much into exhibitionist activities. Loving partners, sharing together, and only together. It helps to form a deeper bond between the two, and is part of what makes it beautiful.

Logged

If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Forgetting for a moment the fact that there are people who do enjoy sex in groups, and that many ancient societies shared living quarters so that children were exposed to sex, I'm talking about sex between loving partners. Its about intimacy, not shame, to want to do it in private. Its a bonding between the two. As Astra said, if done in public its no longer an intimate setting. It becomes something else. A performance? I don't know what I'd call that. But most of us are not that much into exhibitionist activities. Loving partners, sharing together, and only together. It helps to form a deeper bond between the two, and is part of what makes it beautiful.

I don't get why people characterize sex as dirty, nasty or naughty. I suspect abrahamic religion is the culprit.

I think the premise is wrong. I don’t know anyone who would say that sex is dirty, or nasty and would only apply “naughty” in certain circumstances. I should imagine that this latter idea pre-dates Abraham by a few hundred thousand years. The idea of "dirty and nasty" is quite separate and very recent.

First we have to understand that our purpose on earth, like every other living creature’s, is to reproduce our genes. Imagine 2 Neolithic families:

Smith, has a daughter, the other, Jones, a son.

If the son impregnates the daughter, the concern of Smith’s parents is that they will end up taking care of the offspring, that they will die before their daughter is able to fully bring up the child, and that thus, the child will die. The Smiths want a good and capable father for their genes to progress.

The Jones, on the other hand, want a suitable woman to bear the children. One they can trust with their genes; one who will be a good mother.

Bad fathers and mothers were weeded out by natural selection and whole blood-lines ended. Quickly, humans began to learn that this process of mating needed to be approached carefully and with some planning and this was the parents’ job. It wasn’t good enough that two young people, filled with hormones should go at it like bunnies on coke, they had to be the two right people: the sons of the better hunters and the daughters of the better mothers. What was needed was a fertile woman who came from a family that had looked after her well, so she had learned about families and could be judged to be a good mother. So, sex with a random partner was wrong!

As time went on, an agrarian society obsessed with land appeared. Men owned land because they defended it. Now Jones’s parents had to look for a prospective mother and how they could increase their land and thus increase the chances of the survival of their genes. The harder it was to obtain good land, the more restrictive was the outlook on who should be the mother and thus who their son should mate with. The Smith family, having a daughter, wanted to ensure the good father and husband, not some fly-by-night or rich kid who would run off and leave them saddled with a child – another mouth to feed. So, sex with a random partner was wrong!

The 19th century brought increase in public health and survival rates. You could have 15 or so children in a lifetime and it was necessary to be able to care for them, so the choice of a partner became even more important.

Up to this point, sex was truly dangerous, but not dirty – you could die in childbirth, you could have more children than you could look after, you could be saddled with the wrong husband or wife.

You remember the story of Jacob and the breeding of striped sheep? You remember the biblical test for virginity? Why was this important?

Well right up until this point in time, it was believed that if a woman had sex with a man, then part of that man’s character was imprinted on her and that subsequent babies, regardless of the natural father, would have traces of previous partners in them and their character. (In some parts of the dog-breeding world, this exists today – they believe that, if say a prize bulldog bitch breeds with a mongrel, subsequent litters sired by a bulldog, will bear traces of the mongrel. True!)

The 20th century gave us welfare systems that would ensure the survival of children, so vast quantities of them were not necessary. In the middle of the century, life was to change for ever.

The 2nd World War was important. During the First World War, massive casualties were caused by venereal disease. To protect the 2WW troops from venereal disease, condoms were handed out. Fighting men became used to the idea and these became plentiful and accepted and any partner would do. The war gave us cheap, convenient and reliable contraception.

For the first time in our history, you might think that parents need not exercise too much caution over the sex-drive of their children. But all these parents had been brought up with other ideas. Adults had been taught that contraception was, in fact, protection against disease and thus the connection was made – sex is dirty!

The pill arrived and suddenly there was no protection from disease but there was protection from knocking out babies by the score.

Old thoughts and memes die hard, but, as far as I’m concerned, and judging by the falling marriage rate but the birth rate remaining stable, humans no longer think of sex as dirty; they no longer think that sex = 100% babies.

So sex was dirty, and nasty because of the war. It is now only naughty in the eyes of the old, who have not yet disassociated sex from disease.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

All these memes. Personally, sex is just pleasure and an invasion of privacy to me. It feels good but comes at the cost of having another living breathing human being see you in a very private moment. Also hormones being excreted that bond you to that other person which is a bit of a bother to a person like me thats not interested in that.